Primary thing that went wrong was developers saw the success of WoW and assumed that was the new model to build MMOs. What they didn't consider is that WoW didn't increase the size of the MMO market but rather created it's own market. I know several people including my wife who never played an MMO prior to WoW, fell in love with WoW, played WoW for a significant time, eventually quit WoW maybe sometimes revisiting WoW, but wouldn't touch another MMO with a ten foot pole. I honestly think that's a good chunk of the WoW market. The problem was developers thought they could copycat WoWs model and either steal WoWs market share or replicate their success in creating their own market. Not a single one succeeded.
I know few people on here ride motorcycles, but I liken it to Harley Davidson riders. There's a whole market that will only consider riding a Harley. There simply is no substitute, and this market share is BIG. Billions of dollars big. WoW is very similar.
Absolutely! I was just coming to say pretty much the same thing. This is spot on.
Its a bunch of malarkey. New world sold 25mil copies a year ago yet now only has 50k players. People tried it and didnt like it. There are tons of people sitting out right now not playing any MMO at all waiting for a big MMO that is good to come out.
WoW didnt even sell 25mil copies its first year.
These MMO's that have been coming out are being tried and people are immediately leaving with bad reviews. Its not a shortage of players, its a shortage of MMO quality.
New World sold more copies because there are more people playing, or are willing to play, an mmorpg.
He's absolutely correct. Developers saw World of Warcraft and though that "this" was what people wanted. And World of Warcraft was easy to get into, got rid of a lot of things that players would not want to do (such as grind) and it sort of achieved a critical mass with players and very casual players who thought it was just "fun."
A lot of new players were turned on to this type of game. So yeah, there is a much larger group of people willing to try an mmorpg now and that's why New World sold so much. And of course, New World lost players because there wasn't the staying power for those more casual players, those who found some sort of magic with games like World of Warcraft.
Yep new world attracts massive players who promptly quit near max level.
I am not saying New World is the worst game. Its a AAA with a decent 1-50 experience. Its main problem is that it cannot retain players past 50. Think about it, this game is getting tens of thousands of sales per month, and somehow is losing 10k+ average players per month. It only has 30k average players left right now. Not a great looking future here.
It is the only decent AAA MMO to release in the last 7+ years, so it has the entire "new player" market to itself and yet cant retain them or anyone other player base.
Yeah, Players are hopping around looking for what's missing in their MMORPGs and not finding it anywhere.
Gamers are not a bunch of imbeciles. They can think and use logic.
I am sure that is why many believed classic wow raiding was hard and some ebic achiebment only for the raids to be cleared within minutes xD
Or talking about wow classic gameplay as if it wasnt extremely slow and basic to the point anyone who has experienced decent combat gameplay would instantly recognize as terribad but muh nostalgia.
Gamers TM are the last people I would trust these days xD
I think you're confusing "too hard" with "too long"? Remember that thing about optimal play needed breaks or short periods of "down time."
Now this is what we call cope.
I am sure lol, people saying they wanted classic raiding because it was ""long"" as if the retail raids werent taking as much or even more time considering how much trash they ve been adding over the year.
It was never about being "long", it was about the delusional rose tinted emotional belief that it was "hard", somekind of old style "hard" difficulty that in reality was a damn joke as evidenced by the fact that raids got cleared in a few minutes.
They, like not very bright people thought the nostalgia googles experiences would be repeated as if mmos havent completely and utterly changed including them as players over the years, back then it was just clueless people who all jumped it and had to try play well because they didnt know how the game worked and it FELT HARD rather than get carried by broken meta builds and combs and pretend it is easy. Oh wait, we reached another hilarious point of how difficulty is completely based on a build but god forbid you tell tryhards clearing content with the most meta build and broken combs is the equivalent of turning the game into easy mode xD
And anyone with even half a braincell that had played vanilla as well as private servers knew what joke vanila was in terms of gameplay compared to later xpacs.
Like I said, Gamers TM are the last people I would trust these days xD
I am sure lol, people saying they wanted classic raiding because it was ""long"" as if the retail raids werent taking as much or even more time considering how much trash they ve been adding over the year.
It was never about being "long", it was about the delusional rose tinted emotional belief that it was "hard", somekind of old style "hard" difficulty that in reality was a damn joke as evidenced by the fact that raids got cleared in a few minutes.
They, like not very bright people thought the nostalgia googles experiences would be repeated as if mmos havent completely and utterly changed including them as players over the years, back then it was just clueless people who all jumped it and had to try play well because they didnt know how the game worked and it FELT HARD rather than get carried by broken meta builds and combs and pretend it is easy. Oh wait, we reached another hilarious point of how difficulty is completely based on a build but god forbid you tell tryhards clearing content with the most meta build and broken combs is the equivalent of turning the game into easy mode xD
And anyone with even half a braincell that had played vanilla as well as private servers knew what joke vanila was in terms of gameplay compared to later xpacs.
Like I said, Gamers TM are the last people I would trust these days xD
WoW vanilla was difficult at the time. People had to figure it out first time. Also its hard to coordinate 40 people at the exact same time.
There are cyphers and puzzles that can take years to solve, but once you know the solution can be solved in seconds. Comparing people who have been doing these dungeons for 15 years with people who were doing it for the first time at year 0 is a joke.
Many guilds were not even completing the content before the next patch was released. Obviously it was difficult or they would have all beaten the content.
20/20 hindsight. Always someone going to say how something was "SO EASY". What World first Raid guild are you in? Step up to the plate and tell us your qualifications. All talk no action. Telling people how easy it is to ride a bull when you are riding a carousel LOL.
Some people love to brag how easy everything is, when they jump on their level 100 character and head to the level 10 zone. Yeah you are so impressive LOL. JOKE is more like it.
I am sure lol, people saying they wanted classic raiding because it was ""long"" as if the retail raids werent taking as much or even more time considering how much trash they ve been adding over the year.
It was never about being "long", it was about the delusional rose tinted emotional belief that it was "hard", somekind of old style "hard" difficulty that in reality was a damn joke as evidenced by the fact that raids got cleared in a few minutes.
They, like not very bright people thought the nostalgia googles experiences would be repeated as if mmos havent completely and utterly changed including them as players over the years, back then it was just clueless people who all jumped it and had to try play well because they didnt know how the game worked and it FELT HARD rather than get carried by broken meta builds and combs and pretend it is easy. Oh wait, we reached another hilarious point of how difficulty is completely based on a build but god forbid you tell tryhards clearing content with the most meta build and broken combs is the equivalent of turning the game into easy mode xD
And anyone with even half a braincell that had played vanilla as well as private servers knew what joke vanila was in terms of gameplay compared to later xpacs.
Like I said, Gamers TM are the last people I would trust these days xD
WoW vanilla was difficult at the time. People had to figure it out first time. Also its hard to coordinate 40 people at the exact same time.
There are cyphers and puzzles that can take years to solve, but once you know the solution can be solved in seconds. Comparing people who have been doing these dungeons for 15 years with people who were doing it for the first time at year 0 is a joke.
Many guilds were not even completing the content before the next patch was released. Obviously it was difficult or they would have all beaten the content.
20/20 hindsight. Always someone going to say how something was "SO EASY". What World first Raid guild are you in? Step up to the plate and tell us your qualifications. All talk no action. Telling people how easy it is to ride a bull when you are riding a carousel LOL.
Some people love to brag how easy everything is, when they jump on their level 100 character and head to the level 10 zone. Yeah you are so impressive LOL. JOKE is more like it.
Right on the mark, Vanilla was prefect for difficulty setting. Not too hot not too cold but just right. Best when you need help 25% of time.
Read all of the comments on this subject over the last 10+ years, when many of the old timers here have been debating the corporatization and fall of mmos.
Everything has already been discussed. All reasons already given. It's just up to people only now enlightened to the painfully obvious facts now to catch up to the conversation.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worldsâ„¢
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
After watching the video, the question comes to mind: Why hasn't anyone tried to revive MUDs? With a graphical and gameplay update, modern MUDs should find a niche, right?
After watching the video, the question comes to mind: Why hasn't anyone tried to revive MUDs? With a graphical and gameplay update, modern MUDs should find a niche, right?
Do we need more niche games right now? It would really be nice if we could get a real high quality popular one.
After watching the video, the question comes to mind: Why hasn't anyone tried to revive MUDs? With a graphical and gameplay update, modern MUDs should find a niche, right?
Do we need more niche games right now? It would really be nice if we could get a real high quality popular one.
In its niche, however, it could be very popular. In today's huge gaming market, 2-3 million copies sold is still considered a niche IMO.
PvE only people who refused to play more than half and mmorpg (no pvp) while demanding more and more scripted content.
They shouted down immergiant content and stagnated the genre.
You sir win this thread. This is the fate of daoc, gw, and eq. the pve crowd destroyed pvp.
mmo burnout led to fps fetish which led to fps burnout.....now there's nothing to heal the fps burnout.
This user is a registered flex offender. Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say. Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark. Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
I guess I should point out emergent gameplay is the result of varying systems offering players new gameplay opportunities.
That's not a consequence of PvP. It can affect PvP, but PvP itself does not drive emergent gameplay. Game systems and mechanics does.
You stated--->"PvP itself does not drive emergent gameplay."
PvP drove the entire gaming industry. Since UO, PvP was the reason developers launched games on a 3-month rotation and every 6 weeks the hardcore crowd hit end game on every game that was launched. Dev's even catered to the hardcore crowd so much, they were launching PvP console games constantly at GameStop. Crypto was the only thing that halted the obscene amount of games being reskinned and pumped onto store shelves.
Emergent gameplay hasn't happened since the mobile platform. Ai run games are the next emergent gameplay, and its not really that revolutionary. Ai has been around longer than you think.
Game systems and mechanics will never be fixed until people actually learn how to do math. They can build an AI robot but never balance a video game. The population dies. Ever wonder why?
This user is a registered flex offender. Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say. Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark. Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
I guess I should point out emergent gameplay is the result of varying systems offering players new gameplay opportunities.
That's not a consequence of PvP. It can affect PvP, but PvP itself does not drive emergent gameplay. Game systems and mechanics does.
You stated--->"PvP itself does not drive emergent gameplay."
PvP drove the entire gaming industry. Since UO, PvP was the reason developers launched games on a 3-month rotation and every 6 weeks the hardcore crowd hit end game on every game that was launched. Dev's even catered to the hardcore crowd so much, they were launching PvP console games constantly at GameStop. Crypto was the only thing that halted the obscene amount of games being reskinned and pumped onto store shelves.
Emergent gameplay hasn't happened since the mobile platform. Ai run games are the next emergent gameplay, and its not really that revolutionary. Ai has been around longer than you think.
Game systems and mechanics will never be fixed until people actually learn how to do math. They can build an AI robot but never balance a video game. The population dies. Ever wonder why?
That's a whole lot of saying PvP driving sales, and not any of it driving emergent gameplay.
And where's any of this AI bit with you running up from with it being around longer than I think? When did I tell you anything around that?
That's also laying a rather generic blanket over PvP.
There a direction you planned to go with this comment, or were you just planning to throw things out there and see what sticks?
Quality - It just doesn't compare and is only better in one thing, graphics. this is also where I would put the dumbing down effect. Look at EverQuest it had like 12 classes and 10 races most newer games are lucky to even have half that.
Competition - They have to compete with everything still running, emulators that are free and years worth of content.
Corporation - The suits. Why make a MMORPG when you can make a mobile game and rake in more money for less work? Soulless, passionless, number crunching. Also more predatory monetization is accepted in that domain.
Lack of innovation - When you can fire up a new MMORPG and see ! and already know it's going to be a WoW clone with purple epics and quest hubs that you have already played to death it's pretty much the same game under the hood with a different paint job.
Dev costs and Dev time - It's going to take crazy amounts of time and money to make a quality game that can compete. Look at Star Citizen and New World. The interest is there and the funding is there but if New world sold 25 mil and is at 30k on steam charts that's a 0.1 retention rate and 99.9 percent of people quit if my numbers are right. Star Citizen is at what 500 million and over ten years in development? With that kind of time and money it's a wonder indie things like Project Gorgon with a husband and wife team even exist on next to no funding and talent alone.
At this point it would take all the stars aligning and a miracle and something revolutionary for a new MMORPG to be the next big thing. Like voxels, emergent AI, dynamic story telling, super engines that support crazy numbers of players in ultra realistic fantasy world simulations. New amazing random generation devs tool kits. A game that makes it's own new npcs and zones. I'm not sure what it will be but it will have to be something pretty stellar.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
I guess I should point out emergent gameplay is the result of varying systems offering players new gameplay opportunities.
That's not a consequence of PvP. It can affect PvP, but PvP itself does not drive emergent gameplay. Game systems and mechanics does.
You stated--->"PvP itself does not drive emergent gameplay."
PvP drove the entire gaming industry. Since UO, PvP was the reason developers launched games on a 3-month rotation and every 6 weeks the hardcore crowd hit end game on every game that was launched. Dev's even catered to the hardcore crowd so much, they were launching PvP console games constantly at GameStop. Crypto was the only thing that halted the obscene amount of games being reskinned and pumped onto store shelves.
Emergent gameplay hasn't happened since the mobile platform. Ai run games are the next emergent gameplay, and its not really that revolutionary. Ai has been around longer than you think.
Game systems and mechanics will never be fixed until people actually learn how to do math. They can build an AI robot but never balance a video game. The population dies. Ever wonder why?
That's a whole lot of saying PvP driving sales, and not any of it driving emergent gameplay.
And where's any of this AI bit with you running up from with it being around longer than I think? When did I tell you anything around that?
That's also laying a rather generic blanket over PvP.
There a direction you planned to go with this comment, or were you just planning to throw things out there and see what sticks?
I brought up AI because it is a new up and coming emergent gameplay. The new game Devs are swimming in crypto, AI, NFT's, and a burnt-out player base facing job loss and a recession. Everyone is a little excited and crazy about the future of their beloved sport. If Elon Musk took my job with an AI robot, I would happily stay home and get paid in virtual currency to play games. The PVP genre has been tested, rebalanced, and remounted for the last 20 years now. They've worked out the kinks at this point. They have tried to experiment with PVP to create new emergent gameplay, and the closest they got was call of duty. AI was being experimented with years ago. They used to make chat rooms that ran bot conversations. I just thought it was a fun fact to add to the convo. I wasn't really trying to see what stuck. I don't think I laid a generic blanket at all. In fact, I documented real game history. What are you looking for in regard to emergent gameplay?
This user is a registered flex offender. Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say. Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark. Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
I guess I should point out emergent gameplay is the result of varying systems offering players new gameplay opportunities.
That's not a consequence of PvP. It can affect PvP, but PvP itself does not drive emergent gameplay. Game systems and mechanics does.
You stated--->"PvP itself does not drive emergent gameplay."
PvP drove the entire gaming industry. Since UO, PvP was the reason developers launched games on a 3-month rotation and every 6 weeks the hardcore crowd hit end game on every game that was launched. Dev's even catered to the hardcore crowd so much, they were launching PvP console games constantly at GameStop. Crypto was the only thing that halted the obscene amount of games being reskinned and pumped onto store shelves.
Emergent gameplay hasn't happened since the mobile platform. Ai run games are the next emergent gameplay, and its not really that revolutionary. Ai has been around longer than you think.
Game systems and mechanics will never be fixed until people actually learn how to do math. They can build an AI robot but never balance a video game. The population dies. Ever wonder why?
That's a whole lot of saying PvP driving sales, and not any of it driving emergent gameplay.
And where's any of this AI bit with you running up from with it being around longer than I think? When did I tell you anything around that?
That's also laying a rather generic blanket over PvP.
There a direction you planned to go with this comment, or were you just planning to throw things out there and see what sticks?
I brought up AI because it is a new up and coming emergent gameplay. The new game Devs are swimming in crypto, AI, NFT's, and a burnt-out player base facing job loss and a recession. Everyone is a little excited and crazy about the future of their beloved sport. If Elon Musk took my job with an AI robot, I would happily stay home and get paid in virtual currency to play games. The PVP genre has been tested, rebalanced, and remounted for the last 20 years now. They've worked out the kinks at this point. They have tried to experiment with PVP to create new emergent gameplay, and the closest they got was call of duty. AI was being experimented with years ago. They used to make chat rooms that ran bot conversations. I just thought it was a fun fact to add to the convo. I wasn't really trying to see what stuck. I don't think I laid a generic blanket at all. In fact, I documented real game history. What are you looking for in regard to emergent gameplay?
I have to wonder what you think emergent gameplay is gfiven how scattershot your argument is.
Because as a term, emergent gameplay has to do with the scripted mechanics of a game leading to new and often unexpected experiences based on the interaction of those game mechanics.
This is why I said in the first place that PvP does not drive emergent gameplay. A player is not a mechanic, they are users of mechanics. A game can have emergent gameplay elements and be a PvP game, but they are not directly associated.
Your counterpoint about PvP driving the industry and AI stuff has no relevance nor impact on that.
So I'd repeat the point, what do you think emergent gameplay as a term means, because you're not seemingly applying it as it relates to the norm.
Instead of going on insane rants, get a coherent baseline down first that allows one to build an argument from. blurting anything that comes to mind in a stream of consciousness does not form good arguments.
I guess I should point out emergent gameplay is the result of varying systems offering players new gameplay opportunities.
That's not a consequence of PvP. It can affect PvP, but PvP itself does not drive emergent gameplay. Game systems and mechanics does.
You stated--->"PvP itself does not drive emergent gameplay."
PvP drove the entire gaming industry. Since UO, PvP was the reason developers launched games on a 3-month rotation and every 6 weeks the hardcore crowd hit end game on every game that was launched. Dev's even catered to the hardcore crowd so much, they were launching PvP console games constantly at GameStop. Crypto was the only thing that halted the obscene amount of games being reskinned and pumped onto store shelves.
Emergent gameplay hasn't happened since the mobile platform. Ai run games are the next emergent gameplay, and its not really that revolutionary. Ai has been around longer than you think.
Game systems and mechanics will never be fixed until people actually learn how to do math. They can build an AI robot but never balance a video game. The population dies. Ever wonder why?
That's a whole lot of saying PvP driving sales, and not any of it driving emergent gameplay.
And where's any of this AI bit with you running up from with it being around longer than I think? When did I tell you anything around that?
That's also laying a rather generic blanket over PvP.
There a direction you planned to go with this comment, or were you just planning to throw things out there and see what sticks?
I brought up AI because it is a new up and coming emergent gameplay. The new game Devs are swimming in crypto, AI, NFT's, and a burnt-out player base facing job loss and a recession. Everyone is a little excited and crazy about the future of their beloved sport. If Elon Musk took my job with an AI robot, I would happily stay home and get paid in virtual currency to play games. The PVP genre has been tested, rebalanced, and remounted for the last 20 years now. They've worked out the kinks at this point. They have tried to experiment with PVP to create new emergent gameplay, and the closest they got was call of duty. AI was being experimented with years ago. They used to make chat rooms that ran bot conversations. I just thought it was a fun fact to add to the convo. I wasn't really trying to see what stuck. I don't think I laid a generic blanket at all. In fact, I documented real game history. What are you looking for in regard to emergent gameplay?
I have to wonder what you think emergent gameplay is gfiven how scattershot your argument is.
Because as a term, emergent gameplay has to do with the scripted mechanics of a game leading to new and often unexpected experiences based on the interaction of those game mechanics.
This is why I said in the first place that PvP does not drive emergent gameplay. A player is not a mechanic, they are users of mechanics. A game can have emergent gameplay elements and be a PvP game, but they are not directly associated.
Your counterpoint about PvP driving the industry and AI stuff has no relevance nor impact on that.
So I'd repeat the point, what do you think emergent gameplay as a term means, because you're not seemingly applying it as it relates to the norm.
Instead of going on insane rants, get a coherent baseline down first that allows one to build an argument from. blurting anything that comes to mind in a stream of consciousness does not form good arguments.
Google's definition of emergent game is as follows:
Emergent gameplay is a game design term that refers to video game mechanics that change according to the player's actions. Emergent gameplay includes a number of relatively simple decisions that a player must make, the sum of which lead to more complex outcomes. Microsoft edge's definition of emergent gameplay is as follows: Emergent gameplay refers to complex situations in video games, board games, or tabletop role-playing games that emerge from the interaction of relatively simple game mechanics.
Emergent gameplay develops in world PvP which is defined here as open-ended sandbox gameplay and is highly unpredictable.
This article kind of suggests emergent gameplay can be found in PVP. This is an awesome read. https://massivelyop.com/2021/02/12/vague-patch-notes-emergent-gameplay-in-mmos-isnt-a-defense-of-awful-behavior/ Excerpt from article - " Naturally, we have certain people eager to defend this as emergent gameplay, which it technically is. But just the fact that something is emergent does not change the fact that awful behavior is still awful. People finding new ways to harm, deceive, or create misery is not a new or revolutionary concept in MMOs, and we shouldn’t be celebrating that just on the basis of its being player-built."
This user is a registered flex offender. Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say. Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark. Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
I guess I should point out emergent gameplay is the result of varying systems offering players new gameplay opportunities.
That's not a consequence of PvP. It can affect PvP, but PvP itself does not drive emergent gameplay. Game systems and mechanics does.
You stated--->"PvP itself does not drive emergent gameplay."
PvP drove the entire gaming industry. Since UO, PvP was the reason developers launched games on a 3-month rotation and every 6 weeks the hardcore crowd hit end game on every game that was launched. Dev's even catered to the hardcore crowd so much, they were launching PvP console games constantly at GameStop. Crypto was the only thing that halted the obscene amount of games being reskinned and pumped onto store shelves.
Emergent gameplay hasn't happened since the mobile platform. Ai run games are the next emergent gameplay, and its not really that revolutionary. Ai has been around longer than you think.
Game systems and mechanics will never be fixed until people actually learn how to do math. They can build an AI robot but never balance a video game. The population dies. Ever wonder why?
That's a whole lot of saying PvP driving sales, and not any of it driving emergent gameplay.
And where's any of this AI bit with you running up from with it being around longer than I think? When did I tell you anything around that?
That's also laying a rather generic blanket over PvP.
There a direction you planned to go with this comment, or were you just planning to throw things out there and see what sticks?
I brought up AI because it is a new up and coming emergent gameplay. The new game Devs are swimming in crypto, AI, NFT's, and a burnt-out player base facing job loss and a recession. Everyone is a little excited and crazy about the future of their beloved sport. If Elon Musk took my job with an AI robot, I would happily stay home and get paid in virtual currency to play games. The PVP genre has been tested, rebalanced, and remounted for the last 20 years now. They've worked out the kinks at this point. They have tried to experiment with PVP to create new emergent gameplay, and the closest they got was call of duty. AI was being experimented with years ago. They used to make chat rooms that ran bot conversations. I just thought it was a fun fact to add to the convo. I wasn't really trying to see what stuck. I don't think I laid a generic blanket at all. In fact, I documented real game history. What are you looking for in regard to emergent gameplay?
I have to wonder what you think emergent gameplay is gfiven how scattershot your argument is.
Because as a term, emergent gameplay has to do with the scripted mechanics of a game leading to new and often unexpected experiences based on the interaction of those game mechanics.
This is why I said in the first place that PvP does not drive emergent gameplay. A player is not a mechanic, they are users of mechanics. A game can have emergent gameplay elements and be a PvP game, but they are not directly associated.
Your counterpoint about PvP driving the industry and AI stuff has no relevance nor impact on that.
So I'd repeat the point, what do you think emergent gameplay as a term means, because you're not seemingly applying it as it relates to the norm.
Instead of going on insane rants, get a coherent baseline down first that allows one to build an argument from. blurting anything that comes to mind in a stream of consciousness does not form good arguments.
Google's definition of emergent game is as follows:
Emergent gameplay is a game design term that refers to video game mechanics that change according to the player's actions. Emergent gameplay includes a number of relatively simple decisions that a player must make, the sum of which lead to more complex outcomes. Microsoft edge's definition of emergent gameplay is as follows: Emergent gameplay refers to complex situations in video games, board games, or tabletop role-playing games that emerge from the interaction of relatively simple game mechanics.
Emergent gameplay develops in world PvP which is defined here as open-ended sandbox gameplay and is highly unpredictable.
This article kind of suggests emergent gameplay can be found in PVP. This is an awesome read. https://massivelyop.com/2021/02/12/vague-patch-notes-emergent-gameplay-in-mmos-isnt-a-defense-of-awful-behavior/ Excerpt from article - " Naturally, we have certain people eager to defend this as emergent gameplay, which it technically is. But just the fact that something is emergent does not change the fact that awful behavior is still awful. People finding new ways to harm, deceive, or create misery is not a new or revolutionary concept in MMOs, and we shouldn’t be celebrating that just on the basis of its being player-built."
Your "emergent gameplay develops in world PvP" comes from a student study which is prefaced with "This article focuses on the analysis of emergent gameplay, based on a
case study of the author's subjective gameplay experience".
Even then, the author is looking from "Two of the core systems of PvP discussed include the
design of the simple gameplay rules to support emergent gameplay". They contradict their own statement in less than three sentences.
If you look at all the definitions you linked, they are talking about systems. Mechanics.
Your last quoted article is even operating from this angle and talking about how players abused a mode of emergent gameplay that came from systems. The quoted part is even making the distinction between emergent gameplay as a mechanic, and player use of it via behavior.
Thanks for proving my point. It's not PvP that drives emergent gameplay. It's game systems. PvP, like PvE, just utilizes it.
Answers
Once upon a time....
Oh wait, we reached another hilarious point of how difficulty is completely based on a build but god forbid you tell tryhards clearing content with the most meta build and broken combs is the equivalent of turning the game into easy mode xD
There are cyphers and puzzles that can take years to solve, but once you know the solution can be solved in seconds. Comparing people who have been doing these dungeons for 15 years with people who were doing it for the first time at year 0 is a joke.
Many guilds were not even completing the content before the next patch was released. Obviously it was difficult or they would have all beaten the content.
20/20 hindsight. Always someone going to say how something was "SO EASY". What World first Raid guild are you in? Step up to the plate and tell us your qualifications. All talk no action. Telling people how easy it is to ride a bull when you are riding a carousel LOL.
Some people love to brag how easy everything is, when they jump on their level 100 character and head to the level 10 zone. Yeah you are so impressive LOL. JOKE is more like it.
Vanilla was prefect for difficulty setting. Not too hot not too cold but just right.
Best when you need help 25% of time.
Everything has already been discussed. All reasons already given. It's just up to people only now enlightened to the painfully obvious facts now to catch up to the conversation.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worldsâ„¢
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I liked the one that the cat knocked over the baby from behind.
best cartoon ever.
In its niche, however, it could be very popular. In today's huge gaming market, 2-3 million copies sold is still considered a niche IMO.
They shouted down immergiant content and stagnated the genre.
mmo burnout led to fps fetish which led to fps burnout.....now there's nothing to heal the fps burnout.
Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say.
Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark.
Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
That's not a consequence of PvP. It can affect PvP, but PvP itself does not drive emergent gameplay. Game systems and mechanics does.
PvP drove the entire gaming industry. Since UO, PvP was the reason developers launched games on a 3-month rotation and every 6 weeks the hardcore crowd hit end game on every game that was launched. Dev's even catered to the hardcore crowd so much, they were launching PvP console games constantly at GameStop. Crypto was the only thing that halted the obscene amount of games being reskinned and pumped onto store shelves.
Emergent gameplay hasn't happened since the mobile platform. Ai run games are the next emergent gameplay, and its not really that revolutionary. Ai has been around longer than you think.
Game systems and mechanics will never be fixed until people actually learn how to do math. They can build an AI robot but never balance a video game. The population dies. Ever wonder why?
Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say.
Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark.
Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
And where's any of this AI bit with you running up from with it being around longer than I think? When did I tell you anything around that?
That's also laying a rather generic blanket over PvP.
There a direction you planned to go with this comment, or were you just planning to throw things out there and see what sticks?
Quality - It just doesn't compare and is only better in one thing, graphics. this is also where I would put the dumbing down effect. Look at EverQuest it had like 12 classes and 10 races most newer games are lucky to even have half that.
Competition - They have to compete with everything still running, emulators that are free and years worth of content.
Monetization - Cash shops, item malls, and loot boxes. It's predatory cash grab crap.
Corporation - The suits. Why make a MMORPG when you can make a mobile game and rake in more money for less work? Soulless, passionless, number crunching. Also more predatory monetization is accepted in that domain.
Lack of innovation - When you can fire up a new MMORPG and see ! and already know it's going to be a WoW clone with purple epics and quest hubs that you have already played to death it's pretty much the same game under the hood with a different paint job.
Dev costs and Dev time - It's going to take crazy amounts of time and money to make a quality game that can compete. Look at Star Citizen and New World. The interest is there and the funding is there but if New world sold 25 mil and is at 30k on steam charts that's a 0.1 retention rate and 99.9 percent of people quit if my numbers are right. Star Citizen is at what 500 million and over ten years in development? With that kind of time and money it's a wonder indie things like Project Gorgon with a husband and wife team even exist on next to no funding and talent alone.
At this point it would take all the stars aligning and a miracle and something revolutionary for a new MMORPG to be the next big thing. Like voxels, emergent AI, dynamic story telling, super engines that support crazy numbers of players in ultra realistic fantasy world simulations. New amazing random generation devs tool kits. A game that makes it's own new npcs and zones. I'm not sure what it will be but it will have to be something pretty stellar.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/The PVP genre has been tested, rebalanced, and remounted for the last 20 years now. They've worked out the kinks at this point. They have tried to experiment with PVP to create new emergent gameplay, and the closest they got was call of duty.
AI was being experimented with years ago. They used to make chat rooms that ran bot conversations. I just thought it was a fun fact to add to the convo. I wasn't really trying to see what stuck.
I don't think I laid a generic blanket at all. In fact, I documented real game history.
What are you looking for in regard to emergent gameplay?
Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say.
Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark.
Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
Because as a term, emergent gameplay has to do with the scripted mechanics of a game leading to new and often unexpected experiences based on the interaction of those game mechanics.
This is why I said in the first place that PvP does not drive emergent gameplay. A player is not a mechanic, they are users of mechanics. A game can have emergent gameplay elements and be a PvP game, but they are not directly associated.
Your counterpoint about PvP driving the industry and AI stuff has no relevance nor impact on that.
So I'd repeat the point, what do you think emergent gameplay as a term means, because you're not seemingly applying it as it relates to the norm.
Instead of going on insane rants, get a coherent baseline down first that allows one to build an argument from. blurting anything that comes to mind in a stream of consciousness does not form good arguments.
Microsoft edge's definition of emergent gameplay is as follows:
Emergent gameplay refers to complex situations in video games, board games, or tabletop role-playing games that emerge from the interaction of relatively simple game mechanics.
Emergent gameplay develops in world PvP which is defined here as open-ended sandbox gameplay and is highly unpredictable.
This article kind of suggests emergent gameplay can be found in PVP. This is an awesome read.
https://massivelyop.com/2021/02/12/vague-patch-notes-emergent-gameplay-in-mmos-isnt-a-defense-of-awful-behavior/
Excerpt from article - " Naturally, we have certain people eager to defend this as emergent gameplay, which it technically is. But just the fact that something is emergent does not change the fact that awful behavior is still awful. People finding new ways to harm, deceive, or create misery is not a new or revolutionary concept in MMOs, and we shouldn’t be celebrating that just on the basis of its being player-built."
Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say.
Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark.
Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
Yeah, a significant part of the PvP crowd went on survival games which became the true sandboxes.
This is where you get your usual non-scripted content and where the best stories are told, from the unpredictable organic chaos.
Only exceptions: Eve Online and Albion?
Even then, the author is looking from "Two of the core systems of PvP discussed include the design of the simple gameplay rules to support emergent gameplay". They contradict their own statement in less than three sentences.
If you look at all the definitions you linked, they are talking about systems. Mechanics.
Your last quoted article is even operating from this angle and talking about how players abused a mode of emergent gameplay that came from systems. The quoted part is even making the distinction between emergent gameplay as a mechanic, and player use of it via behavior.
Thanks for proving my point. It's not PvP that drives emergent gameplay. It's game systems. PvP, like PvE, just utilizes it.